CF 14-0057-S8  at City Council   ADOPTED MOTION 19A (MARTINEZ – KORETZ – RYU – KREKORIAN – BLUMENFIELD – HUIZAR – WESSON)

Recommendations for Council action, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR:

AMEND to adopt the following recommendations, in lieu of the recommendations contained in the Committee Report:

REQUEST the City Attorney to revise the Draft Ordinance on the file, dated June 23, 2016, without Section 1 of the Draft Ordinance and transmit the revised Ordinance directly to Council for action.

DIRECT the Department of City Planning, in consultation with the City Attorney, to consider and report on ways to provide an interim solution, including issuing a new Zoning Administrator Interpretation (ZAI) or a new ordinance, in substantial conformance with the Inter-Departmental Correspondence entitled Second Dwelling in Single Family Zone Pursuant to AB 1866 dated June 23, 2003 (and attached to the File) that maintains the building standards set forth in Ordinance No. 159,599 adopted January 8, 1985, to sever those portions of Sections 12.24.W.43 and 12.24.W.44 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) that do not comply with Government Code Section 65852.2 and thereby bring the City’s Second Dwelling Unit policies and practices into compliance with State law.

DIRECT the Department of City Planning to initiate a new code amendment and possible amendment to the Housing Element to conduct a comprehensive, open, transparent review and process of, and propose revisions to Sections 12.24.W.43 and 12.24.W.44 of the LAMC with regard to second dwelling units to provide ministerial standards that alleviate barriers to their construction as required by the City’s General Plan Housing Element while taking into account the unique characteristics of each geographic area of the city that may result in certain limitations and prohibitions, in compliance with Government Code 65852.2.

ADOPTED

MOTION 19B (MARTINEZ – KREKORIAN)

Recommendation for Council action:

AMEND to include a provision in the ordinance that its provisions shall not apply to any second dwelling unit issued under ZA 120 that has been challenged by an administrative appeal, or judicial procedure filed prior to May 12, 2016, and where the administrative appeal process as outlined in Los Angeles Municipal Code 12.26 K, or the judicial procedure, has not been exhausted.

REFERRED TO THE PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

CF 16-0348  at City Council Received and Filed item   (13 – 0 – 2)

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF HOUSING COMMITTEE REPORT relative to Los Angeles Neighbors in Action v. City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court Case BS150559 Second Dwelling Units and 2716 Krim Drive.

• Housing Committee Report (May 5, 2016)

Recommendations for Council action:

REPEAL the City’s Second Unit Ordinance codified at Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 12.24 W.43 and W.44.

DECLARE any building permit for a second unit issued pursuant to the 2003 correspondence issued by the Department of City Planning (DCP) and Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) or the 2010 memorandum issued by the Chief Zoning Administrator of the DCP to be valid and effective if the permit otherwise complies with all State and local laws.

DIRECT the DCP to take any steps necessary to implement this action as soon as possible, and to report on the feasibility of restrictions in single-family zones to preserve neighborhood aesthetics and to require homeowner occupancy of primary residence.

DIRECT the LADBS to continue to allow inspections and plan checks for second dwelling unit permits issued prior to February 25, 2016, and to advise property owner permit applicants that the Court Order and judgment are still pending.

NOTE and FILE the City Attorney report to Council dated March 23, 2016 relative to Los Angeles Neighbors in Action v. City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court Case BS150559 Second Dwelling Units and 2716 Krim Drive.

Fiscal Impact Statement: None submitted by the City Attorney. Neither the City Administrative Officer nor the Chief Legislative Analyst has completed a financial analysis of this report.

Community Impact Statement: Yes.
Against, unless Amended: Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council

(The City Council may recess to Closed Session, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) to confer with its legal counsel relative to the case entitled Los Angeles Neighbors in Action v. City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court Case BS150559. (This matter arises from a challenge to the City’s policies and practices of applying state law’s ministerial standards for approving second dwelling units, i.e. so-called granny flats, and policies and practices regarding front yard setback requirements applied to certain hillside streets.))

CF 14-0057-S8 at City Council   Adopted as Amended, (13); Absent: Cedillo, Englander (2)

Final Ordinance No. 184,510 

Recommendations for Council action, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR:

FIND that this project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based upon the categorical exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense exemption) and 15303(a) (Class 3 Categorical Exemption for New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Adoption of these categorical exemptions are appropriate when the Council, exercising its independent judgement, determines the project meets all of the requirements set forth in the above referenced Section of the CEQA Guidelines and none of the exceptions to the use of a Categorical Exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to this project, based upon substantial evidence contained in the entire administrative record.

FIND that this project is exempt from CEQA based upon the statutory exemption set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 21080.17, which provides that CEQA does not apply to the adoption of an Ordinance by a City or County to implement the provisions of Section 65852.1 or Section 65852.2 of the Government Code (i.e. Second Dwelling Unit Law). Adoption of this statutory exemption is appropriate when the Council, exercising its independent judgement, determines that the project meets all of the requirements set forth in the above referenced statute, based upon substantial evidence contained in the entire administrative record.

ADOPT the FINDINGS of the Los Angeles City Planning Commission (LACPC) as the Findings of the Council.

PRESENT and ADOPT the accompanying ORDINANCE dated June 23, 2016, repealing Subsections 12.24.W.43 and 12.24.W.44 of Chapter 1 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, and granting legal nonconforming status to second dwelling units, for the purpose of complying with State law AB 1866.

Applicant: City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning

Case No. CPC-2016-1245-CA

Fiscal Impact Statement: None submitted by the LACPC nor the City Attorney. Neither City Administrative Officer nor the Chief Legislative Analyst has completed a financial analysis of this report.

Community Impact Statement: Yes.
Against: Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
Encino Neighborhood Council
Studio City Neighborhood Council
Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Northridge East Neighborhood Council

(URGENCY CLAUSE – 12 VOTES REQUIRED ON SECOND READING)

(The City Council may recess to Closed Session, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) to confer with its legal counsel relative to the case entitled  Los Angeles Neighbors in Action v. City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court Case BS150559. (This matter arises from a challenge to the City’s policies and practices of applying state law’s ministerial standards for approving second dwelling units, i.e. so-called granny flats, and policies and practices regarding front yard setback requirements applied to certain hillside streets.))

CF 14-0057-S8  At City Council  Adopted to Continue, Unanimous Vote (11); Absent: Cedillo, Fuentes, Harris-Dawson, Price (4)   CONTINUED TO AUGUST 31, 2016
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, STATUTORY EXEMPTION, PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT and ORDINANCE FIRST CONSIDERATION relative to a Code Amendment regarding Second Dwelling Units.

Recommendations for Council action, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR:

FIND that this project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based upon the categorical exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense exemption) and 15303(a) (Class 3 Categorical Exemption for New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Adoption of these categorical exemptions are appropriate when the Council, exercising its independent judgement, determines the project meets all of the requirements set forth in the above referenced Section of the CEQA Guidelines and none of the exceptions to the use of a Categorical Exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to this project, based upon substantial evidence contained in the entire administrative record.

FIND that this project is exempt from CEQA based upon the statutory exemption set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 21080.17, which provides that CEQA does not apply to the adoption of an Ordinance by a City or County to implement the provisions of Section 65852.1 or Section 65852.2 of the Government Code (i.e. Second Dwelling Unit Law). Adoption of this statutory exemption is appropriate when the Council, exercising its independent judgement, determines that the project meets all of the requirements set forth in the above referenced statute, based upon substantial evidence contained in the entire administrative record.

ADOPT the FINDINGS of the Los Angeles City Planning Commission (LACPC) as the Findings of the Council.

PRESENT and ADOPT the accompanying ORDINANCE dated June 23, 2016, repealing Subsections 12.24.W.43 and 12.24.W.44 of Chapter 1 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, and granting legal nonconforming status to second dwelling units, for the purpose of complying with State law AB 1866.

Applicant: City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning

Case No. CPC-2016-1245-CA

Fiscal Impact Statement: None submitted by the LACPC nor the City Attorney. Neither City Administrative Officer nor the Chief Legislative Analyst has completed a financial analysis of this report.

Community Impact Statement: Yes.
Against: Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
Encino Neighborhood Council
Studio City Neighborhood Council
Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Northridge East Neighborhood Council

CF 14-0057-S8 at City Council

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, STATUTORY EXEMPTION, COMMUNICATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY and ORDINANCE FIRST CONSIDERATION relative to grandfathering Second Dwelling Units.

Recommendations for Council action, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR:

FIND that this project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based upon the categorical exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense exemption) and 15303(a) (Class 3 Categorical Exemption for New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Adoption of these categorical exemptions are appropriate when the Council, exercising its independent judgement, determines the project meets all of the requirements set forth in the above referenced Section of the CEQA Guidelines and none of the exceptions to the use of a Categorical Exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to this project, based upon substantial evidence contained in the entire administrative record.

FIND that this project is exempt from CEQA based upon the statutory exemption set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 21080.17, which provides that CEQA does not apply to the adoption of an Ordinance by a City or County to implement the provisions of Section 65852.1 or Section 65852.2 of the Government Code (i.e. Second Dwelling Unit Law). Adoption of this statutory exemption is appropriate when the Council, exercising its independent judgement, determines that the project meets all of the requirements set forth in the above referenced statute, based upon substantial evidence contained in the entire administrative record.

ADOPT the FINDINGS of the Los Angeles City Planning Commission (LACPC) as the Findings of the Council.

PRESENT and ADOPT the accompanying ORDINANCE dated September 2, 2016, relative to granting legal nonconforming status to second dwelling units, for the purpose of complying with State law AB 1866.

Applicant: City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning

Case No. CPC-2016-1245-CA

Fiscal Impact Statement: None submitted by the LACPC nor the City Attorney. Neither City Administrative Officer nor the Chief Legislative Analyst has completed a financial analysis of this report.

Community Impact Statement: Yes.
Against: Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
Encino Neighborhood Council
Studio City Neighborhood Council
Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Northridge East Neighborhood Council

(URGENCY CLAUSE – 12 VOTES REQUIRED ON SECOND READING)

(The City Council may recess to Closed Session, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) to confer with its legal counsel relative to the case entitled Los Angeles Neighbors in Action v. City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court Case BS150559. (This matter arises from a challenge to the City’s policies and practices of applying state law’s ministerial standards for approving second dwelling units, i.e. so-called granny flats, and policies and practices regarding front yard setback requirements applied to certain hillside streets.))